Thread: Electronic rust prevention on cars

"I've heard that the used electrons are really good for lemon trees!"

Originally Posted by rockettgpw

Ive also heard weewee is good for lemon trees... is there a connection?

Actually there is no connection. The problem is that weewee is not a laminar flow.

AHH well ... a good friend of mine who does electronic reseach and builds prototypes had a contract from a client several years ago to investigate this whole electronic rust protection thing and to produce a prototype.

Well, the upshot is ....... this Ionic rust inhibition thing, can and will work ...... but there are some crippling practical limitations .... listed as I understand them.

1. the amount of energy required to produce an effective field is quite substantial ... this has two drawbacks .... battery drain and um ... er .... "customer comfort"

2. producing an even and effective field across a large object of complex shape is ...... um ...... problematic.

3. This whole ionic principle is active on surfaces, but not in enclosed parts or between surfaces pressed together ...... so it seems to be effective on say scratches on outer surfaces but not in cavities like sill panels and door bottoms

4. these devices can produce unhelpfull electronic interfeerance.

The for arguments are very well expressed but tenuous and ignore the drawbacks.

Unfortunately many of the againts arguments are not applicable or well expressed ....... the process is not cathodic so a return path is not needed ..... the process is an ionic field.

This process can be demonatrated to work on a small piece of metal of a simple shape ....... but seems no-one has proven good results on a commercial product on a complete motor vehicle....that will withstand scientific scrutiny

Good paint, propper washing and some sort of persistent oil ( such as fish oil or lanolin) have far more consistent and proven results.

cheers

Originally Posted by soundman

AHH well ... a good friend of mine who does electronic reseach and builds prototypes had a contract from a client several years ago to investigate this whole electronic rust protection thing and to produce a prototype.

Well, the upshot is ....... this Ionic rust inhibition thing, can and will work ...... but there are some crippling practical limitations .... listed as I understand them.

1. the amount of energy required to produce an effective field is quite substantial ... this has two drawbacks .... battery drain and um ... er .... "customer comfort"

2. producing an even and effective field across a large object of complex shape is ...... um ...... problematic.

3. This whole ionic principle is active on surfaces, but not in enclosed parts or between surfaces pressed together ...... so it seems to be effective on say scratches on outer surfaces but not in cavities like sill panels and door bottoms

4. these devices can produce unhelpfull electronic interfeerance.

The for arguments are very well expressed but tenuous and ignore the drawbacks.

Unfortunately many of the againts arguments are not applicable or well expressed ....... the process is not cathodic so a return path is not needed ..... the process is an ionic field.

This process can be demonatrated to work on a small piece of metal of a simple shape ....... but seems no-one has proven good results on a commercial product on a complete motor vehicle....that will withstand scientific scrutiny

Good paint, propper washing and some sort of persistent oil ( such as fish oil or lanolin) have far more consistent and proven results.

cheers

AN 'ionic field' hey?

Yep similar to would be found associated with a radiating antenna or a high voltage electrode.

Seriously .... the concept does work ....it can be demonstrated on small pieces of metal with no difficulty. ....... but the practicalities simply make it ineffective in the application.

The same bloke went on to work on ionic water sterilisation ..... that most certainly does work .... but the context is entirely different.

cheers

Originally Posted by soundman

Yep similar to would be found associated with a radiating antenna or a high voltage electrode.

Seriously .... the concept does work ....it can be demonstrated on small pieces of metal with no difficulty. ....... but the practicalities simply make it ineffective in the application.

The same bloke went on to work on ionic water sterilisation ..... that most certainly does work .... but the context is entirely different.

cheers

Your mate is full of it. It doesn't work, and cannot work. IF indeed the principle you suggest worked, then we would not have ongoing issues with antenna and transmission line corrosion, which we do.

As for ionic sterilisation, may you are referring to deionised water, or perhaps dosing water with certain metal ions such as copper or silver. Eitherway, its got nothing to do with anti-corrosion and the principles are WAY different. If your mate is suggesting he does something magic with just electricity itself, he is a fraud.

Just because you don't understand it, does not mean it does not work.

Note that I sad "LIKE" not the same as

As I say this ionisation method of corrsion inhibition can and does work and can be proven to work on small piece of metal. The fact that it can be proven to work on this small scale is part of the hokus pokus used by some of the commercial rust prevention vendors.

Water sterilisation by electrical ionisation, most certianly does work, the equipment looks similar to salt water chlorination .... except without the salt or the chlorine ..it is a method that is gaining favour in the third world, because it can be run off solar supplies and requires no chemicals added to the water.

cheers

Originally Posted by soundman

Just because you don't understand it, does not mean it does not work.

Note that I sad "LIKE" not the same as

As I say this ionisation method of corrsion inhibition can and does work and can be proven to work on small piece of metal. The fact that it can be proven to work on this small scale is part of the hokus pokus used by some of the commercial rust prevention vendors.

Water sterilisation by electrical ionisation, most certianly does work, the equipment looks similar to salt water chlorination .... except without the salt or the chlorine ..it is a method that is gaining favour in the third world, because it can be run off solar supplies and requires no chemicals added to the water.

cheers

Thats the thing, I do understand it. I studied corrosion science at uni and I used to work in water treatment when I was an instro. So not only do I understand it from an electrical perspective, I understand the chemistry as well!

Like so many before you, you claim that it cant work for all the wrong reasons.

What you may have been taught at uni about corrosion or have seen in conventional water treatment. .... has given you a very narrow understanding of the matter.

What is taught and how corrosion is managed has pretty well not changed since the early 20th century.

Likewise water treatment .... particularly bulk water treatment in public water supply has not changed (from strain it, and bleach it) in many decades, even the low volume methods such as micro filtration and ozmosis have been arround for many decades .... water sterilisation by either irradiation or ionisation are fairly recent in having practical applications developed but they have been proven and they do both work.

Sterilisation by ionisation does not work like anything you will have seen in the past, the entire model and mechanism is different ...The process I know of it is not suitable for bulk water treatment and it is not a full flow process.



As for the prevention or in actual fact inhibition of corrosion by ionisation, yes it is proven to work, but its effect is limited, has issues and it does not scale well.

As I have mentioned, several of the snake oil merchants use this ability to demonstrate convincingly in small scale to sell their product.

If you want to argue against these products and not be made a fool of by the skilled snake oil merchant, the common presupositions and preconceptions need to be forgotten.

And those presupositions include what the process WILL actually do and what it WON'T ...... And there lies the difference between the limited reality and what is implied. .... the difference between what can be convincingly demonstrated and what simply does not work.

The proofs of failure are not where you are looking.
This is not a cathodic process.


To someone with conventional electrical understanding there is a lot that will not make sence ...but this is by no means a conventional electrical process.....there is a lot about conventional RF transmission that makes no conventional electrical sence, and the behahavious make less electrical sence as frequency increases....... this ionisation process is as different from conventional electricity as RF is.

cheers

Originally Posted by soundman

Like so many before you, you claim that it cant work for all the wrong reasons.

What you may have been taught at uni about corrosion or have seen in conventional water treatment. .... has given you a very narrow understanding of the matter.

So you are saying the physics that we are taught is wrong? As a science person, I can accept that some of the theory that we are taught may be wrong, but you better have some pretty solid evidence to back that up. If you have the evidence, feel free to post it. Make sure its peer reviewed though.

Originally Posted by soundman

To someone with conventional electrical understanding there is a lot that will not make sence ...but this is by no means a conventional electrical process.....there is a lot about conventional RF transmission that makes no conventional electrical sence, and the behahavious make less electrical sence as frequency increases....... this ionisation process is as different from conventional electricity as RF is.

cheers

I just reread this part too. Everything about RF transmission makes sense. Sure, its pretty complicated, but its well understood and so is the science behind it. I have designed circuit boards that work at high frequencies, digital to be precise which is even more complicated than the old analogue stuff.

Originally Posted by Pearo

So you are saying the physics that we are taught is wrong? As a science person, I can accept that some of the theory that we are taught may be wrong, but you better have some pretty solid evidence to back that up. If you have the evidence, feel free to post it. Make sure its peer reviewed though.

That is not what I said ..... you simply where not taught the physics that relates to this phenomina.

Originally Posted by soundman

That is not what I said ..... you simply where not taught the physics that relates to this phenomina.

I was not taught it because uni's are not in the process of teaching rubbish (outside of arts degree's anyway!).

Trust me, if this stuff worked, it would be the subject of every single lecture on corrosion, and the uni's would be working on ways to make it work. Lecturer's love talking about new stuff. However some claims from a so called 'inventor' who has had no formal education on the subject other than what he has read on google will be ridiculed as it so well deserves.

To be honest, I dont think you actually understand what an ion is, or the term 'ionic'. And I suspect you dont understand how corrosion itself works, which can easily be represented with a chemical equation its that simple. Likewise, any method of preventing corrosion can also represented with a simple chemical equation.

If your claims can be substantiated, then please feel free to provide the evidence.

Like so many acedemics, you simply do not want to understand or admit that something you don't understand, can and does work.

It can be convincingly demonstrated to work, in a small scale...... with significant limitations.

As far as any further argument... I cant be bothered .... I know that it does not work and can not work large scale ...so no further brain effort is not required.

cheers

Originally Posted by soundman

Like so many acedemics, you simply do not want to understand or admit that something you don't understand, can and does work.

It can be convincingly demonstrated to work, in a small scale...... with significant limitations.

As far as any further argument... I cant be bothered .... I know that it does not work and can not work large scale ...so no further brain effort is not required.

cheers

For a start I am not an academic. Secondly, I asked you to show evidence, but you wont. Therefore we can safely assume its snake oil.